6 ms·

I agree with everything you said, but I suffered a huge rush of blood to the head when you used the word "recreation." When I look at a government-managed area

by dkarl 2y ago

I agree with everything you said, but I suffered a huge rush of blood to the head when you used the word "recreation." When I look at a government-managed area and see the word "recreation," I immediately think of 4-wheelers and motorboats, driven by people who have just drunk an entire ice chest full of beer, throwing trash out the window, possibly carrying firearms regardless of any rules. I think we need to think about management in a graded way, with different areas having different mandates and different policies, with different restrictions on usage, and all working together in a way that repairs what we have damaged, and working together with policies for land that isn't government-managed. However, we have to be prepared to stand up for restrictions that a lot of people aren't happy with. A lot of people aren't happy that we don't log and mine natural parks. If we give in to the "common sense" of people like that, on the reasoning that "nothing is truly wild," we'll lose the rest of what we have, and very quickly. The moment you use a word like "recreation" in connection with a federally-managed piece of land, people are going to assume it's for partying and drunk-operating noisy vehicles. And they're going to call you elitist and out-of-touch for pushing back. We absolutely need to fight those battles, even without a blind and absolute belief in "wilderness."

bytesahoy 2y ago
If the challenge here is on conceptual framing of wild lands, if there were to be any movement from the word and concepts tied to "wilderness", why not something like "stewarded"? This recognizes, for example, historical Indigenous practices of managing land without allowing for plunder or party. Instead, it elevates wilderness as something to be protected, cherished, and looked after - also in opposition to the neglect of "wilderness".
- dkarl 2y ago
  I used to love the word "stewardship" because I thought it would resonate with Christians. Over time I learned that it does resonate with Christians, but in a bad way: too many of them see stewardship as extremely temporary, and they feel like there's a deadline to make the most use of land before God blows the whistle and brings this realm of existence to an end. I no longer think that environmentalism can constructively engage with Christianity. It's always going to be a fight.
  - bytesahoy 2y ago
    Unfortunately you're right about that, as much as I like the word disconnected from those views, preconceptions about earth's apocalyptic doomsday may instead lend to "careful plunder", in a "stewardly manner". Okay, how about "Natural Sanctuaries" and the "Bureau of Land Kinship"? That may emphasize the sacredness of the land itself rather than the tending of it, which is more open to interpretation.
    - dkarl 2y ago
      Making anything sacred outside of Christianity (and other established religions) offends more people and makes the fight harder. I think we should concentrate on practical, inclusive arguments about the environmental, ecological, educational, and experiential benefits of keeping large areas of land free from development and industrial exploitation, and create a hierarchy of management from maximally protected / minimally exploited areas down to fully exploited areas that have little ecological value but provide a different value such as timber production or recreation.
- merely-unlikely 2y ago
  I always liked the name of the Bureau of Land Management
tastyfreeze 2y ago
If you have been to any national parks recently I think you would understand the "recreation area" designation. The most accessible parks are now so crowded it no longer feels like a wilderness. Just streams of people trying to experience rare places. A place like Zion gets 9.5 million visitors a year. Even "leave no trace" outdoor practices leave some trace. Multiply that by the number of visitors and the impact is obvious.
- linguistbreaker 2y ago
  Accessibility is probably far and away the strongest effect on human impact to areas rather than any legal designations.
  - tastyfreeze 2y ago
    Which Park Services improves as traffic increases with the mission of reducing impact.
- dkarl 2y ago
  I was in Sequoia National Park last week. All parking was absolutely full, people were parking illegally all over the place, traffic was slowed to a crawl because people were walking on the park roads trying to get to where they wanted to go, and there was a 45 minute wait for park buses because of a traffic accident. We need more places like that, especially since we're becoming more urbanized, and kids are growing up without access to less-developed areas. Granted, there are a lot of unique places like Sequoia and Zion that can't be replicated, but every landscape has its own charms.
samschooler 2y ago
We do have that. A designated "Wilderness Area" is the most strict classification. Restrictions in these areas (which cover large majorities of our national parks) are: - No motorized vehicles - No permanent buildings - this even means bathrooms and bear boxes many places. Stephen Mather Wilderness (North Cascades National Park) is currently doing surveys asking about if they should install more of them or add more bathrooms. - Limited trail signage - No "trammeling" which essentially means: don't mess with natural processes. These Wilderness Areas are very different from Federal Recreation Areas, yet you can still "recreate" in a Wilderness area seeking solitude and nature. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5270137.pdf https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb52701...
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  I would like someone who understands both backcountry hiking and Ultima Online to discuss the term trammeling, please.
sbierwagen 2y ago
>possibly carrying firearms regardless of any rules Carrying long guns is legal on all BLM land. Discharging them may be restricted in some areas, though.

by dkarl 2y ago

bytesahoy 2y ago

If the challenge here is on conceptual framing of wild lands, if there were to be any movement from the word and concepts tied to "wilderness", why not something like "stewarded"? This recognizes, for example, historical Indigenous practices of managing land without allowing for plunder or party. Instead, it elevates wilderness as something to be protected, cherished, and looked after - also in opposition to the neglect of "wilderness".

dkarl 2y ago
I used to love the word "stewardship" because I thought it would resonate with Christians. Over time I learned that it does resonate with Christians, but in a bad way: too many of them see stewardship as extremely temporary, and they feel like there's a deadline to make the most use of land before God blows the whistle and brings this realm of existence to an end. I no longer think that environmentalism can constructively engage with Christianity. It's always going to be a fight.
- bytesahoy 2y ago
  Unfortunately you're right about that, as much as I like the word disconnected from those views, preconceptions about earth's apocalyptic doomsday may instead lend to "careful plunder", in a "stewardly manner". Okay, how about "Natural Sanctuaries" and the "Bureau of Land Kinship"? That may emphasize the sacredness of the land itself rather than the tending of it, which is more open to interpretation.
  - dkarl 2y ago
    Making anything sacred outside of Christianity (and other established religions) offends more people and makes the fight harder. I think we should concentrate on practical, inclusive arguments about the environmental, ecological, educational, and experiential benefits of keeping large areas of land free from development and industrial exploitation, and create a hierarchy of management from maximally protected / minimally exploited areas down to fully exploited areas that have little ecological value but provide a different value such as timber production or recreation.
merely-unlikely 2y ago
I always liked the name of the Bureau of Land Management

tastyfreeze 2y ago

If you have been to any national parks recently I think you would understand the "recreation area" designation. The most accessible parks are now so crowded it no longer feels like a wilderness. Just streams of people trying to experience rare places. A place like Zion gets 9.5 million visitors a year. Even "leave no trace" outdoor practices leave some trace. Multiply that by the number of visitors and the impact is obvious.

linguistbreaker 2y ago
Accessibility is probably far and away the strongest effect on human impact to areas rather than any legal designations.
- tastyfreeze 2y ago
  Which Park Services improves as traffic increases with the mission of reducing impact.
dkarl 2y ago
I was in Sequoia National Park last week. All parking was absolutely full, people were parking illegally all over the place, traffic was slowed to a crawl because people were walking on the park roads trying to get to where they wanted to go, and there was a 45 minute wait for park buses because of a traffic accident. We need more places like that, especially since we're becoming more urbanized, and kids are growing up without access to less-developed areas. Granted, there are a lot of unique places like Sequoia and Zion that can't be replicated, but every landscape has its own charms.

samschooler 2y ago

We do have that. A designated "Wilderness Area" is the most strict classification. Restrictions in these areas (which cover large majorities of our national parks) are: - No motorized vehicles - No permanent buildings - this even means bathrooms and bear boxes many places. Stephen Mather Wilderness (North Cascades National Park) is currently doing surveys asking about if they should install more of them or add more bathrooms. - Limited trail signage - No "trammeling" which essentially means: don't mess with natural processes. These Wilderness Areas are very different from Federal Recreation Areas, yet you can still "recreate" in a Wilderness area seeking solitude and nature. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5270137.pdf https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb52701...

singleshot_ 2y ago
I would like someone who understands both backcountry hiking and Ultima Online to discuss the term trammeling, please.

sbierwagen 2y ago

>possibly carrying firearms regardless of any rules Carrying long guns is legal on all BLM land. Discharging them may be restricted in some areas, though.